Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
“should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?”
Seems like an easy one. No good husbandly correction could include a smack, indeed to try it would be a criminal offense. That one would get an easy win for the "Yes" vote. I think a better demonstration of the incredible complexity of the referendum question might be required.
Tell that to Bob and Larry.
They're divided on what to do about it. They're not divided on what the answer to the referendum question was. That one's come in pretty decisively. Which kind of suggests people didn't struggle to understand what it meant.
-
QFT, I like it. Could you get any more vague than:
* Quantum field theory, the theory of quantum mechanics for field-like systems
* Quantum Fourier transform, a discrete Fourier transform
* Quantitative feedback theory
* Queen's Film Theatre, a cinema in Northern Ireland
* "Quoted For Truth" - an acronym commonly used on internet forums.
* "Quit Fucking Trying/Talking" - also an acronym used on internet forums, mostly gaming.
* "Quite Fucking True" - another acronym used around the internet.sez wiki.
-
Too late to read all this thread, just wanted to say I hated compulsory unionism. It wasn't technically compulsory at Auckland Uni when I was there, but if you opted out then you couldn't borrow books from the library, which was pretty much required in most courses. Not that the Union owned the library - it was just a deal they'd struck with the Uni to make unionism pretty much compulsory. Admittedly all those fees they took were eventually saved up to make a much better amenities complex, which was enjoyed by students well after I'd left. But I did object deeply to very large donations being given to the Labour party, and I never did find out what happened to that speedboat which was supposedly purchased for the waterskiing club that had no members.
-
The problem with that particular sneer, Luke, is that it has some rather nasty anti-Semitic baggage attached.
Because all Jews are usurers and don't have imagination or innovation? Not the first thing that popped into my head, I must say. It was more "mmmm yessss, Bankers, boring buggers aren't they?".
-
Graeme, so would a "light smack as part of good parental correction" currently be a crime, or one of the lesser violations of law? What kind of punishments could arise from it, if the police (for whatever reason) decided to aggressively pursue a prosecution? It was suggested further up in this thread that it would not be considered a crime, in which case this referendum is not suggesting a repeal, but could have opened the door to an even more restrictive Act (if the Yes vote had got more than 12% and there was any chance of the government acting on it).
-
Are laws often changed because of what people believe to be true?
I hope so.
I'm sure you could find a million drivers who would agree that speed has no influence on road safety and should not be prosecuted.
Far be it from me to suggest speculation.
-
I don't expect Yellow Pages-like briefing books on every area of public policy, but a little respect for my ability to think beyond soundbites and human interest sob stories would be appreciated. And I'm still to be convinced that CIR add anything meaningful to public policy debates worth having.
I feel unappreciated in every aspect of the governance of the country but I still want to have my little say. To opt out is to not be heard. That's why answered the question that was asked. It wasn't hard, it wasn't really confusing, and the opinions on it don't seem very divided.
Or could we say "Should speeding as a part of good everyday driving be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"
I've been busted for speeding a few times. But I've never had a criminal conviction for it. I would certainly oppose a law that made light speeding a criminal offense, whether or not it gave the cops discretion to decide whether they like me enough not to bust me.
Furthermore, comparisons to speeding assume the wrongness of speeding, whereas in the case of corrective smacking there's still a case to answer, both at a practical and a moral level. At least over a million NZers seem to think so.
-
Well, I'm glad you've got that figured out -- because it sure seemed to be the kind of loaded like a rhetorical AK-47 question that could mean whatever the hell you wanted it to. Which was kinda sorta my problem -- if we're going to have CIR, the question should not require the parsing skill of a Talmud scholar on speed.
No, the skills of an average adult seemed to be sufficient for most of the voters. There's obviously some ambiguity in there, as there is in the legislation. The word "reasonable force" is used a lot. Is a light smack for the right reasons reasonable force? Perhaps this referendum answers how NZ feels about that. It's certainly a lot more specific an answer than "40% of people voted for this bunch of people", which is the amazing level of democracy we get every 3 years, and I've never heard you complaining that we shouldn't vote in those because the manifestos and motives are not written in a formal specification language.
-
which is, I suspect, a lot further than many people who cast a NO vote realise.
Perhaps, but the question wasn't "Do you think Baldock should decide what happens with smacking?". If Matthew Poole is right, the NO vote is a vote for the status quo and the YES vote for an imaginary future.
-
One last thing on behaviourism, I sometimes wonder whether a better understanding of reinforcement would help parenting. Give in to that child and buy the lollies they're tantruming over, and you've just reinforced the tantrum behaviour. Mint.
Dude, I've been hearing about the intricacies of behaviorism my whole life - my father is a child psychologist. But that still didn't prepare me for child rearing. It's a hands-on sport, much like swimming, you can't learn it from a book. There's a huge amount of subtlety in there. It takes more than just knowing about these things, you have to do lots of 'guided practicals'.
Also, there is no denying the awesome amount of science showing that punishment does actually work in changing human behaviour. But reward does seem to be a more powerful motivator. Particularly, and strangely, intermittent reward. Hence problem gambling. Punishment is generally a rather weak motivator, it is too unguided and specific. The focus becomes avoiding the punishment, which might not lead in the direction of the desired behavior. It took about 60 thrown pillows to train my cat not to scratch the couch, but only one time of showing it where the scratching post is and then giving it some fish after it scratched the post. I trained it not to sleep on the couch by the simple expedient of putting the cat basket near to the heater.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 861 862 863 864 865 … 1066 Older→ First